Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

The analogy would much closer to the truth performance and usability wise if you associated the D800E to a BMW M3 and the back to a Ferrari 458, but whatever makes you feel good Anders.

car analogies are great, like cameras they have the same level of measurable performance qualities as well as the less quantifiable justification of irrational vanity purchases, perceived value and acceptance by your peers for owning middle class baubles.

Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of. And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40. The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.

The challenge now is lenses. The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form. Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever. For these reasons it will remain.

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news).

Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.Eduardo

Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.Eduardo

And even more don't believe it unless they personally run tests with the best available examples. Years ago, I did just that with Haselblad 500 Series and Nikon, and cm for cm the Nikon was unbeatable by the Zeiss glass.

Where the diffence lay, of course, was in the magnification factor when you filled both formats with the same image, in which case the 'blad was the better tool.

One interesting observation that you made is that it took a last generation (or next last?) high end MFDB to give you satisfaction that you never felt with the lesser backs. Many buyers would opt just for those lesser backs, perhaps second hand? So they can still spend like 20000$ (camera, lenses and back) on equipment which may not give them satisfaction if they are as demanding as you are?

Nope, that was not quite correct. I spoke compared to the satisfaction I got from Velvia 50. I liked the colors and rendering from Velvia 50.

The 28MP Leaf Aptus back I had was really stellar and superb for portraits. For landscapes I did not find the colors nor rendering towards transition of highlights as pleasing as Velvia 50. Those were the two main reasons I kept on shooting Velvia I guess...

I would recommend an Aptus 65 back to anyone, because I found it really great. In particular for portrait works. The AFi-II is simply one big step forward in colors, fine gradation of colors, better DR (same sensor as IQ180 and Credo 80). I am not talking mere of the more pixels to stare at, but the more pixels are great because I now crop frequent ... but it needs very steady hand holding.

Never said that. What I have said and am saying is that the images quality difference is very small while the price difference is huge.What I am also saying is that in the real world of most commercial photography that difference is not readily visible and I am not referring to web, I am referring to print.

My other important point is that the better functionality of a high end 35mm DSLR are more likely to make a significant difference to the final result when working under pressure and long hours. At the end of a 8 hour fashion shoot shooting wide open for that shallow depth of field look the accuracy of the focusing of a 35mm DSLR will mean you get close to 100% keepers. When the model is starting to fade you cannot afford to lose any shot due to focus hit rate. Shooting with wind you need a faster frame rate.

Now there was a time when you had to make a significant quality compromise to have agility and speed. Today you only have to make a very small compromise, one that will be virtually invisible on publication. Even large format publication.

As I have stated before you really have to print on state of the art printers like the IPF8100 that I use or better, print to 60x40 inches to see that difference.And even then you have to approach the image and observe it close up. And there are times when this is the case... such as a large landscape image where the viewer wants to step close and observe parts of the image... explore corner to corner. Doesn't need to be a photography nerd either

Now you are more like talking . As you say there is an advantage to MFDB at a price, and I assume you mean of similar pixel count as D800. Yet even ZD (same sensor as Aptus 22) under the narrow condition it delivered well was capable of a certain characteristic rendering that was plain lovely. If we speak of latest sensors in MFDB, there is a much larger difference.

The analogy would much closer to the truth performance and usability wise if you associated the D800E to a BMW M3 and the back to a Ferrari 458, but whatever makes you feel good Anders.

Happy to take that M3 from your hands, but not your D800. Talk of difference between the two in user friendliness, no zillion buttons to operate an M3... just plain raw and quality performance, made in Germany, not Japan

Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses are stellar and some less so.

In the 90-es Photodo tested several hundred lenses using Hasselblads MTF test rig (and personnel). Photodo also had a grading system, going from 0 to 5.0, with 5.0 being theoretical maximum. The Hasselblad lenses tested came in at 3.1, 3.9, 3.7, 3.6, 2.7, 3.6,3.7 and 3.1.

Mamiya 7 lenses came in at 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.3, 3.8, 3.5 and 4.1, so they were better on average the Hasselblad.

Some Canon lenses came in at 3.9, 4, 3.9, 4.4, 4.4, 4.6, 4.1, 4.2, 3.9, 4.5, 3.9 and 4.8, with the last being the 200/1.8L USM.

A lens that is know to be stellar is the Zeiss 21/2.8 but the Zeiss 25/2.8 was not a very sharp lens.

The Leica lenses for the Leica S2 are said to be the best lenses there are, but when "Diglloyd" tested them on the S2 versus a Nikon D800 with a Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 the Nikon/Zeiss came out on top.

On the other hand Schneider and Rodenstock (now called Linos) build specially designed lenses for MFDBs with a small image circle but very high resolution. At least the MTF curves in the brochures look impressive, specially if you note that the lines go up to 60 lp/mm, instead the normal maximum of 30 or 40 lp/mm.

What I would say that you need to look at individual lenses and individual samples. Then comes the other issue of bringing that MTF to sensor. Many cameras that don't have live view are not very easy to focus exactly.

Alpa builds a couple of technical cameras with very exact helical focusing and select Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.

In general, a lens that gets diffraction limited at a larger aperture is always better than one that needs to be stopped down more. So, if a lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 for optimum sharpness that lens will be much less sharp than a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6. Why? Because the optimum aperture is where the lens is limited by diffraction.

And yeah, if you stop down a lot, all decent lenses will be similar as MTF and resolution will be limited by diffraction!

Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.Eduardo

car analogies are great, like cameras they have the same level of measurable performance qualities as well as the less quantifiable justification of irrational vanity purchases, perceived value and acceptance by your peers for owning middle class baubles.

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of. And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40. The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.

The challenge now is lenses. The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form. Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever. For these reasons it will remain.

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news).

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of. And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40. The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.

The challenge now is lenses. The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form. Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever. For these reasons it will remain.

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news).

- N.

Agree . MF still has a better file so I will always give it that advantage. It's just smoother looking and we still can't get around the tech cams as being the best there is both in its abilities for T/S and the great lenses from SK and Rodie. But with the new Zeiss glass coming the gap will close even further and that's a good thing. If I was able to maintain the MF gear financially. I would have never sold it as the tech cam was killer good. But being a Pro in business we just have to watch our money outlay so I feel I took a small step backwards but also a step forward in usability .really end of day sometimes the usability will win the day. Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.

I've always been the seat of my pants type photographer (oh hello, I'm weighing in), and short of 'mucking about' with a D800E at a trade show, I haven't compared the files directly (I'd like to, might make an effort in the near future).

I think it's been touched on, but there isn't really just one reason. I'm invested in the PhaseOne system (IQ160) as well as Canon (though currently in between Canon camera's, last camera's were 1Ds3 and 5D2). But when I think of the initial decision to go with MFD over 35mmD, came down to a few little things, some less substantial then others.But there are benefits that we simply only get on medium or large format. My major technical reason (short of the remarkable files when compared to my old 5D2 and 1Ds3 files) is the leaf shutter/central shutters. If they were suddenly available for the 35MM format, I'd seriously consider reverting back, but they almost certainly never will.

On a more personal note, I love the mechanical sound of the system, the feel in hand. It's a personal thing.

I think when I try my camera vs say the D800 and hopefully the 645D (not on resolution, but just quality wise) I'll reserve final judgement. What I will say though is in the history of my digital life since the 20D, each jump when shooting raw between the generations has been significantly less then what has been suggested or reviewed. Sure better etc, but it's never been more then a baby step over the last generation.

Though to add, I find it humorous people are getting so emotional over really something that's personal. And generally speaking, most of the technical latitude we see in these camera's usually doesn't result in a huge improvement in photography capacity. The best camera there is, is the one you have on you.

Also agree. A lot will just come down to feel and what you like to shoot with. I loved all my MF gear actually scary but I had 5 phase backs DFs , tech cams and the whole lot. They are awesome systems and loved the quality from them and I have some great images from it.

I hope that the new Zeiss lenses will not be redesigns of old MF lenses. The reason is mainly that at least according to MTF data from Hasselblad and also tests done by Photodo (made at Hasselblad) were not very good. Far from as good as leading lenses from Canon, for instance.

I'm much aware that this contradicts some experience, like our friend Stefan Steib of Hartblei fame. But the simlpy truth may be that some Canon and Nikon lenses are really good.

Lens rentals have tested a lot of lenses on the Nikon and found that the Zeiss 21/2.8 was the best performer of all. Lensrentals test all incoming at outgoing lenses so they have a very wide foundation of measurement data.

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of. And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40. The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.

The challenge now is lenses. The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form. Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever. For these reasons it will remain.

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news).